0 thoughts on “Definitions aren’t important

  1. DL Emerick

    I don’t believe in it, in this “being” called “God”. I live it. So do you as does every living “being”, all the way down the evolutionary tree. Being alive is being (a part of) God. Being dead is about not being a part of anything, especially not even of “God”.

    Hence, only all theists everywhere, forever, are wrong, absolutely wrong. There is no “God” in which one could put “belief”, as if “God” were some sort of bank, some sort of repository or depository, some final resting place.

    Are atheists confused when they believe there is a God but not one that they personally care to believe in? That’s the crux of the question, isn’t it, John?

    I believe there is Wall Street, too, but it’s not a thing that I care to believe in — certainly not a thing that I would trust with my money, let alone my life.

    I beleive there is a God; I live as if there is a God — but I don’t believe in a “beingness” of God — an arbitrary theological philo-sophism.

    And, my God, who is your God, doesn’t care at all, whether anyone “believes” in “its” “being” — not at all. There is no “being” there to care, in any logical (and rigorous) sense of the term “being” that Man can imagine.

    So, call me a heretical Spinozoan.

  2. John

    There is a difference between the words “belief” “trust” and “support.”

    One may believe in Wall Street, but not trust it, or support it.
    To disbelieve in Wall Street takes a great ability to ignore reality. The work needed to pull off a hoax of that nature is astronomical.

  3. DL Emerick

    I believe there is a Wall Street. I don’t believe in it, as the act of placing trust in it, as an institution, perhaps.

    I believe there is a God. I don’t believe in God, as the act of trusting God, as a “being”, to be “worthy” of my trust — for, even if HE were a being, what does my life matter to HIM, that HE should design the course of history, locally (if not globally!), to please me? Indeed, Scriptures hint at this, in suggesting that Man should act in ways pleasing to GOD (or at least not act in ways known to be displeasing to HIM. GOD, by such theo-sophistry, is the (only) BEING who (rightly) does as HE pleases. Hence, even by theo-sophistry, I would be right (logially correct) to say that such a GOD does not (logically) require belief in HIM.

    Deistic Belief is a mogrelized Christian concept, anyway. The GOD of the Hebrews was not interested in the relatively abstract question of your belief in HIM, or not. Instead, we Hebrews are commanded to place our GOD ahead of (or beyond) all other (kinds of) GODS. But, we are also allowed to challenge our GOD, when we think HE has (apparently) made a mistake — as perhaps Abraham believed when he argued with GOD about the doom GOD was considering for Sodom and Gomorrah, because those towns had neglected the poor and the needy, and turned, arrogantly, to the all-too-easily found corruptions we see in the self-pleasing ways of the wealthy — the ego-centric, ego-dominated narcissism of individualism — which is also, too often, the defining “ethos” of capitalism itself — as known in greed, lust, avarice.

    I do not believe in GOD, nor in Capitalism, nor yet in incorporated form as WALL STREET, rather like the “Devil” made flesh and dwelling among us. (I don’t believe in “the Devil” either.)

    I make a great deal of noise over this difference between the small words that truly matter here: the difference between “believing that” and “believing in”. I wish to say, again, that only theists have ever been, are now and ever will be, absolutely wrong — when they choose to “believe in GOD”. GOD just is not that kind of guy, nor that kind of thing — to believe in, as an all-or-nothing proposition of BEING.

    Atheists who also do not believe in GOD would be wrong only factually (for there is GOD), whereas both atheists and theists who believed in GOD would never be right, morally.